Calorie counting doesn't work according to a new study. Apparently.
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
When I read this I think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
No, SEVERAL options are needed. There can never be a one-size fits all approach. Different people, different things will click.
This whole idea that there will be one "right" answer is just wrong-headed.
That's what I said, and have said repeatedly.
And usually when I do, you disagree with me - so....welcome to the club.
I've never disagreed with you when you said several different approaches are needed because people are different and different things work for different people.
I disagree with you about just about everything else.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
If you do things right, there is no "try" in weight loss, it happens naturally with very little effort.
Statistics show different. My personal experience shows way different. If it was easy then 9 times out of 10 this site would not exist.
0 -
Way too many pages of responses to bother with on a study that hasn't even been peer reviewed. But it is an interesting, though not exactly new, concept. And from the few blurbs I could find on the book, it's not really saying that calories don't matter for weight loss. It seems to be more saying that your gut microbes can throw off the 'calories in' side of the equation to the point that trying to count calories becomes useless.
But, I haven't read the book (is it even published yet?) and the media always adds it's own spin.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
If you do things right, there is no "try" in weight loss, it happens naturally with very little effort.
Statistics show different. My personal experience shows way different. If it was easy then 9 times out of 10 this site would not exist.
Or maybe it's just being done in away that makes it more difficult. Based on the current advice taken.
I was actually going to agree that some people are just doing in wrong. I can admit that past attempts at weight loss were done the wrong way.0 -
People seem willing to do far less pleasant things to lose weight... as long as they believe that it is only a temporary thing to do. If you say that the change has to be permanent then suddenly people lose interest. Even if I explain that it will only suck for a while but then when you get stronger and you can wear cute clothes it doesn't feel horrible working out any more, and once you know how to prepare high nutrient low cal foods with plenty of flavor that becomes easy too. It seems far less bad getting over the initial change than clanging down horrible, expensive "detox" drinks and fasting on only liquids for a week.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's also not a good solution if it's a product of fantasy. Short of some drug that completely alters the situation, obese people are going to stay obese if they're sitting around waiting for an approach that will succeed without thinking about it.TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
This.
But having an excuse that it's not their fault allows them to do so.
Even if you go along with what seems to be Mr. Knight's view--that we have no will, so no control in a real sense over how much we eat or exercise--it seems quite likely that the belief that you can change something will lead to circumstances in which you take those actions, whether they are in reality willed or not.0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's perfectly possible to be lazy in one aspect of one's life while not being lazy in others. Someone could work his butt off at a profession and be lazy when it comes to yard work. Or losing weight.yopeeps025 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
When I read this I think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
That's not laziness, that's prioritization.
now we are back to playing word games again..
you can be a hard worker and then be lazy and not workout because you would rather sit on the couch after work.
People probably have a natural limit on how much difficult stuff or stressful stuff or stuff requiring will power they can make themselves do absent real necessity. So someone might choose to (or be in a situation where they feel they have to) use it up on one part of life (like work) vs. others.
Also, if you enjoy working out choosing to go do it requires less willpower (and can be consistent with laziness) than if you don't. That's one reason why I've generally been most successful when I find ways to be active that I perceive as recreational activity and, especially, when I can make them social in some sense or have friends who reinforce the activities.
If I blow off work on a Saturday to go for a bike ride, that's good for my health and weight, but doesn't necessarily make me less lazy.
(I don't deny that I have lazy tendencies, although I also work really hard at other times, but in a theoretical sense I think it's more complicated.)
However, I still don't buy that it's not subject to choice in some sense--that our chosen actions won't affect our weight. Of course they will, unless you just want to say all perceived choice is illusion, in which case none of this matters.0 -
So having read through this whole debacle I have a few thoughts.
First - while you can't escape the realities of creating a calorie deficit, it seems short-sighted, at best, to think that all those millions upon billions of creatures living in our intestines (lovely thought, huh) couldn't possibly have an impact on our health or weight. That said we really don't know *what* that impact might be, how it would work, or how best to "optimize" the number and type of bacteria in our intestines. Those who are jumping the gun and recommending specific diets to improve intestinal flora are charlatans.
Second - we may very well find that optimizing our intestinal bacteria has a significant impact on weight loss (be it due to improved satiety, improved digestion, reduced craving, whathaveyou). But that still seems pretty low on the totem poll. First and foremost a calorie deficit must be created - eating less, exercising more. Then I can see playing around with macros to find what works best for a given individual to allow them to maintain a deficit without feeling hungry - different macro ratios can dramatically impact satiety, but it is highly individual. Then a focus on micros - making sure your nutritional needs are adequately met - is warranted, not for weight loss so much as for optimal health and nutrition. Finally, AFTER one has done all of that, maybe looking towards ways of improving one's gut bugs could help. This article was basically putting the cart before the horse, trying to skip the (boring) work that needs to be done before one gets to put the icing on the cake (as it were).
As for "you can't outrun a bad diet", I'll go ahead and say that I can see both meanings - no amount of exercise will help you lose weight unless you are in a calorie deficit is obviously true. But I've also heard it stated in regards to nutrition, especially when talking about "skinny-fat" people. Yeah, you can exercise and be thin and in great shape, outwardly, but if you are eating mostly crap (the definition of which, right, wrong, or indifferent, varies from one person to the next, unfortunately), you may still be unhealthy (high cholesterol, high blood glucose, high BP, etc). Both sentiments are accurate. I'd love to see someone of a normal weight with good blood markers switch from a mostly "healthy" diet to one comprised of mostly "junk" (or vice versa) to see what would happen to their blood markers, holding their weight constant through the switch.
Oh, and call me a terrible person, but fat unicorns are hilarious!0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....0 -
Well, in my own personal study it does work, and that's the only study that matters to me.
0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
are you sure you read the article...here are the headlinesEverything you think you know about diets is WRONG: Counting calories is a total waste of time, it’s bacteria in your gut that make you fat and finally, cheese, alcohol and chocolate can all help
Professor Tim Spector, a leading genetics expert, finds compelling evidence as to why calorie-controlled diets don’t work
He believes with the right regimen of diet and exercise, we can be happy, healthy - and lean - and keep the pounds off for life
Author of new book The Diet Myth: The Real Science Behind What We Eat
First line of the article
Calorie-controlled diets don’t work.
The word calorie is there 16x...insulin x00 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
now, you are moving the goalposts.
you brought up insulin resistance and I pointed out it was oft topic, you then said it was on topic, and it was again pointed out that it was off topic, and now you come back with this...? LOL0 -
Oh look who's here.
What's the over/under on the thread lock?0 -
Interesting study Pu_239 (I actually printed it out and read through the whole thing), but the point is that the article linked here is that counting calories does not work, which is just plain insupportable.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Oh look who's here.
What's the over/under on the thread lock?
imminent0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
now, you are moving the goalposts.
you brought up insulin resistance and I pointed out it was oft topic, you then said it was on topic, and it was again pointed out that it was off topic, and now you come back with this...? LOL
You sound surprised?
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
now, you are moving the goalposts.
you brought up insulin resistance and I pointed out it was oft topic, you then said it was on topic, and it was again pointed out that it was off topic, and now you come back with this...? LOL
You sound surprised?
no, just pointing out the obvious.0 -
Once again, negative comments, has anyone done any research on this subject?. Typical.
The title is misleading. Being a person who had severe digestive issues for 6-12 months. I did my research on the subject. Gut health is probably the most critical part for the human body to function properly.
What did you do? Did you get better? Id like to know. Pm me if you would.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions